Computerised Minds. ...

A video sponsored by the society discusses Searle's Chinese Room Argument (CRA) and the heated debates surrounding it. In this video, which is accessible to the general public and those with interest in AI, Olly's Philosophy Tube ...


Erden in AI roundtab...

On Friday 4th September, philosopher and AISB member Dr Yasemin J Erden, participated in an AI roundtable at Second Home, hosted by Index Ventures and SwiftKey.   Joining her on the panel were colleagues from academia and indu...


AISB Convention 2016

The AISB Convention is an annual conference covering the range of AI and Cognitive Science, organised by the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour. The 2016 Convention will be held at the Uni...


Bishop and AI news

Stephen Hawking thinks computers may surpass human intelligence and take over the world. This view is based on the ideology that all aspects of human mentality will eventually be realised by a program running on a suitable compu...


Connection Science

All individual members of The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour have a personal subscription to the Taylor Francis journal Connection Science as part of their membership. How to Acce...


Al-Rifaie on BBC

AISB Committee member and Research Fellow at Goldsmiths, University of London, Dr Mohammad Majid al-Rifaie was interviewed by the BBC (in Farsi) along with his colleague Mohammad Ali Javaheri Javid on the 6 November 2014. He was a...


AISB YouTube Channel

The AISB has launched a YouTube channel: ( The channel currently holds a number of videos from the AISB 2010 Convention. Videos include the AISB round t...



AISB event Bulletin Item

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS: "Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and Mathematics", 11-13 Jun 2014, Munich, GERMANY

International Conference on
 "Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and Mathematics"

 Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung, Munich, Germany.
 June 11-13, 2014


 Graham Priest, City University of New York, USA and University of St
 Andrews, UK
 Diderik Batens, Ghent University, Belgium
 Otavio Bueno, University of Miami, USA
 Heinrich Wansing, Ruhr-Universitt Bochum, Germany
 Joke Meheus, Ghent University, Belgium
 Francesco Berto, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
 Andreas Kapsner, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Munich, Germany

 Extended with (on condition of extra funding):

 Jc Beall, University of Connecticut, USA
 Bryson Brown, University of Lethbridge, Canada
 Itala M. Loffredo D'Ottaviano, University of Campinas, Brazil
 Christian Straer, Ghent University, Belgium


 Paraconsistent logics restrict the inferential power of logics that
 trivialize inconsistent sets, such as Classical Logic. A large number of
 different paraconsistent logics have been developed in the previous and
 present century. They attempt to formalize reasoning from inconsistent
 premises, with the intent to explain how theories may be inconsistent, and
 yet meaningful and useful. Such non-trivial inconsistent theories definitely
 exist: this is abundantly shown in the history of science. There are
 moreover prototypical non-empirical cases among which naive set theory and
 naive truth theories are the most prominent ones.

 The great variety of paraconsistent logics gives rise to various,
 interrelated questions:
 (a) What are the desiderata a paraconsistent logic should satisfy?
 (b) Which paraconsistent logics score well given certain desiderata?
 (c) Is there prospect of a universal approach to paraconsistent reasoning
 with axiomatic theories?
 (d) Comparison of paraconsistent approaches in terms of inferential power.
 (e) To what extent is reasoning about sets structurally analogous to
 reasoning about truth?
 (f) To what extent is reasoning about sets structurally analogous to
 reasoning with inconsistent axiomatic theories in the natural sciences?
 (g) Is paraconsistent logic a normative or descriptive discipline, or
 intermediate between these two options?
 (h) Which inconsistent but non-trivial axiomatic theories are well
 understood by which types of paraconsistent approaches?

 This conference aims to address these questions from different perspectives
 in order (i) to obtain a representative overview of the state of the art in
 paraconsistent logics, (ii) to come up with fresh ideas for the future of
 paraconsistency, and (iii) to facilitate debate and collaboration beyond the
 borders of the different schools of paraconsistency.


 Deadline for submission: February 15, 2014
 Notification of acceptance: March 15, 2014
 Conference: June 11-13, 2014


 Please submit your abstract of approximately 500 words to:


 Holger Andreas, LMU Munich, Germany
 Peter Verde, Ghent University, Belgium